@DuduLagziel@DanielBachmat וזאת, בנפרד מהנקודה של דניאל שגם תקפה, שגם מודלים יכולים לשקף טעם מקביל-לאנושי, להכליל מטעמם של בני אדם (למרות שזה כמובן קשה, בפרט כשאין verifiable rewards על זה).
@DuduLagziel@DanielBachmat אין לתופעה פה שום "הגדרה" (האם זה סובייקטיבי או משקף נסיון להתחבר אל משהו אובייקטיבי שמאחוריו). ולמעשה אתה יכול למצוא אינדיקציות על כך שזה... לא בדיוק כך, למשל בתוכן הדיונים סביב דברים שכאלה, או בהתכנסות להסכמות שמשקפות לכל הפחות אינטר-סובייקטיביות.
It must be so exciting to be a mathematician right now. Imagine spending your life with your colleagues on problems you think will help humanity once solved, and watching them get solved.
There were a lot of things that only worked because there's a limit to the rate at which humans can operate. We're about to find out what all of them are, as they break.
arXiv and every other academic venue is being denial of serviced with slop submissions. It feels like every pillar of what I grew up with as a (self-taught) grant funded machine learning researcher is being disrupted. The driving research is being done privately and in secret or is published partially as marketing by closed labs. Academia is publishing research papers on black box commercial products (e.g. the OpenAI API) and academics are often marginalized unless they build up large social media and press followings. https://t.co/QhRUsTiUX3 is full of slop unless you filter by affilitation or trusted author. This obviously isn't just machine learning it's metastasizing across every discipline. Now's the time for bold proposals on the structure of the scientific enterprise.
If you are baffled but curious about the Navier-Stokes news today, this article I tweeted about a few days ago is now more worth reading than ever. It gives a witty, insightful overview for a general reader, as long as you are willing to read about math. https://t.co/cDgOUExlch
When I was editing that essay I read for I think the first time the full context for Hilbert's "we must know -- we will know" quote. Very fitting for the present moment as well: 'We must not believe those, who today, with philosophical bearing and deliberative tone, prophesy the fall of culture and accept the ignorabimus. For us there is no ignorabimus, and in my opinion none whatever in natural science. In opposition to the foolish ignorabimus our slogan shall be Wir müssen wissen – wir werden wissen (“We must know – we will know”).'
I'm currently returning to Toronto from a summit on the future of mathematics, at OpenAI. @SebastienBubeck asked me to talk a bit about the future we'd all like to avoid, where humans are mathematically disempowered. @Jacob_Tsimerman advised us to try to prioritize detail over correctness, and I have no doubt that I succeeded in deprioritizing correctness.
I tried to find a title that wasn't too bombastic:
But OF COURSE we should move the goalposts, because the goals were set for human mathematicians, as a kind of proxy for what we actually care about, which isn't solving conjectures (even if we tricked ourselves into thinking so). •28/38